"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Sunday, 10 November 2013

I linked in to the Globe and Mail and read Richard Florida's piece about Toronto politics

I read a front page story as well. It reminded me why I stopped reading Toronto's newspapers.

I saw somewhere The Star is offering an "explanations" for paying drug-dealers $5,000. for the first video compromising Toronto's Mayor. Did they give it to Toronto Police?

Did the Police find one of their own"

Who told Clayton Ruby, the Police had he video?

So the police could be accused of covering for the Mayor

So the Chief got spooked and not only spilled the beans about the video and his "disappointment" .
And then threw in surveillance videos filmed by Toronto' Police Department from a plane in the sky.

My God, those suckers cost hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour to fly in the sky.

Who is keeping check on the police Department and the judgement they exercise?

Now we have McCormick. son of a former Police Chief , now Presidnet of the Toronto Police Association weighing in on the discussion.

The same McCormick on trial for something nasty----like extortion from people in the entertainment ( read drug dealing) district of Toronto-------Richmond Street...where a person associated with the
explosive video ----was shot and killed on the sidewalk----outside an entertainment club.

Anybody who knows anything about the police, knows, no police officer would ever be charged with a crime if the evidence was not iron clad and insurmountable.

McCormick got off. Does anybody know? who was his lawyer-?--Does Clayton Ruby ring a bell?

Soon after McCormick was President of the Toronto Police Association.

Here's something else not commonly talked about------ the real power in Ontario Policing lies with the Ontario Police Association.

Power corrupts---absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Since less than twenty years, the Province stopped appointing judges to chair Police Commissions.

It had been determined ----Ontario Judges consistently aligned themselves with the Police and could not therefore provide objectivity required from a Police Governing Authority.The Judge chairing York Region Police Services Board when I was a member was last to serve in that capacity.Since then---- Regional Councillors have served as Chairmen If a judge can't be objective-----what can be expected of a politician? A regional politician at that---accountable to no-one--------How many reading this know who is chair of York Region Police Services Board? I don't read Toronto newspapers----because when I read ,I think. When I think I need to write.And since the blog is at hand there's nothing to hinder me and lots to tell----at the expense of Our Town Affairs .

A good day for reading. Incidentally, yesterday someone told me the minutes for the GC weren't up yet. Is that usual ? I wanted to see if Council ever finished messing with the property owner and his trees. ****************I received my agenda as usual. That's all I know.The manager of parks has visited the lot and determined the trees are compromised by the grading plan approved by the town. They will not survive. The Director of E and I has visited the lot and submitted a detailed report indicating the lot cannot be properly graded with the trees in place. The Solicitor's Report is back on the agenda for Council to deal with.There's a recommendation from the Planning Director for approval of a plan to plant seven trees to replace three .
The home -buyer has been in touch

All except Councillors Gaertner and Ballard have visited the lot to see the situation for themselves.

The lot was graded a week before it was inspected.

It was inspected two weeks before the report is submitted.

I think we can predict all but three members of Council will accept staff advice and approve the recommendation of the Planning Director.

There's no indication at the moment of a third or fourth, I've lost count, delegation from immediate neighbors whose lots abut 33 Longthorp Court.

That's not to say they won't come back once more to fight for the right to enjoy the sight of their neighbors trees, is greater than his right to have a properly graded yard that keeps the rain out of his
house.

I am still reading ---TEAM OF RIVALS---- on page 251 a paragraph reads:

Benearh his graceful facade, Seward was hurt, angry and humiliated." it wasonly some months later,"
the biographer Glyndon Van Deuseb writes, " When the shock has worn off and hope of a sort revived, that he could say, half whimsically, half ruefully, how fortunateit was he did not keep a diary,
for if he had there would be a record of all is cursing and swearing" when the news arrived.

That was after Abraham Lincoln won the Republican nomination .

Seward was confident of victory.

Could he ever have imagined a time , I wonder, that some sly.sneaky bastard pretending to be a friend might have been in his private company filming his reaction at hat moment of unimaginably intense emotion.

Here is Toronto City Councillor Gord Perks response when asked how council should move Toronto forward (this was provided following Rob Ford's radio show apology on Sunday - so before the crack smoking admission and tape of the mayor screaming about how he wants to kill someone):

"Many people are asking me to work to remove Mayor Ford from office. To the core of my being I believe it should not be up to elected officials to remove each other from office.

It is axiomatic that in a democracy the community elects its government. It must also be up to the community to remove its government and replace it with another – through elections. Anything that displaces the electorate's power to choose its government is anti-democratic. Further, our system wisely allows for a range of different points of view in government. If we allow elected officials to force each other out of office, we risk having elected officials who oppose the majority view being pushed out of office. History is replete with examples of how bad that is for a society.

Both before and during the previous election, it was clear that Rob Ford was racist, homophobic, and had problems with substance abuse and honesty. Nevertheless he won the election. We, all of us who care about justice and democracy, need to ask ourselves why this happened.

I have what I believe is part of the answer. It is increasingly common for people and institutions to succumb to anger, resentment, and an urge to punish government for real and perceived failings. Ironically, it was this very anger that helped elect Rob Ford Mayor. Recall the relentless attacks he made as a Councillor and mayoralty candidate on factually small but symbolically large uses of Councillor's office budgets, and his mantra about ending the so called "Gravy Train".

This style of politics draws on the slogans of people like Ronald Regan who said "Government is the problem" and Margaret Thatcher who said "There is no alternative". Nonsense! Government is the tool we build together to solve problems. Its precise function is to find alternatives that bring us to a better future. Theirs is a politics of resentment and anger. Reject it.When we succumb to that anger, important questions about how to build the City we want are lost and forgotten. For the record, I am not immune to this anger. Over three years of resisting the ugliest parts of the Mayor's assault on good governance I have on occasion lost my temper and have twice decided I had to apologise to Council. Frequently, I have to remind myself to step back and count to ten and remember that I am here to build the City. I am not here to get into pointless conflict. It's hard to do, but essential that I do it.

I want to ask you to count to ten. When you are angry at your government, remember that quick, anger-fuelled solutions usually make problems worse. When a neighbour expresses anger over a real or perceived failure of the government or public servants, speak up and remind them that so much of what holds our society together depends on those same public servants. They work to make sure that we have the comforts and community we all enjoy. When government does not solve the social problems that bring suffering to neighbourhoods, resolve not to grumble but instead to learn, participate, and organize for a better government.Most of all spend some portion of every month – even just one hour – doing political work to ensure that we don't elect angry anti-democratic leadership to govern this wonderful City that is our home."

I agree that a 4 year term has proven itself counterproductive and would like to see some debate surface about returning to a 2 year term.

I just watched the CBC trio with Peter Mansbridge talking about Toronto and the Senate situations.

Mansbridge asked the question and Coyne made the point ; voter loyalty to the extent information provided by the media is ignored, is a problem for democracy.

There needs to be a mechanism to remove people from office if need be.

He didn't indicate who should make the determination

i thought----- a committee of journalists perhaps, elected by their peers.

Heavy weights like Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin would no doubt be perceived as excellent candidates.

Chantal Hebert, ever the voice of reason , pointed out -----we've just had the debate about the
rule of law. It would not be that easy to find such a mechanism.

The true irony is---------we have a mechanism-------it's called an election. ---- it's an established principle of democracy that the people have the right to choose their representatives.

They haven't always had that right. An entire generation of young men were torn apart by the machines of war ----on beaches drenched with their blood -----before the right to vote was granted.

A heavy price was paid . To quote Winston Churchill. in the Second World War ------- Never has so much been owed by so many to so few .

We are about to remember that sacrifice.

For a century, local elections were held every year, For about twenty, it was every two years. Then it was three .In 2003, democracy was substantially reduced ----- one might say---neutered---- snipped---scissored----emasculated.... sterilized----- take your pick----by extending municipal terms to four years.Four years is half as much democracy as two . A bad situation is twice as onerous. Twice as much damage can be done in four years as in two.

Four year terms were introduced when Toronto was amalgamated.

Odd thing---- I never heard of a single learned journalist ---- or team -----.Mansbridge and Coyne were both around at the time-------I heard neither one intone that a four year term of office is a bad or a good thing.

It is bad but it wasn't even worth discussing.

Election is the only mechanism possible in democracy for dealing with a problem of mis-representation.

I am not sure I understand this clearly. Are you saying that a $323,000 project was cancelled, or that we incurred costs of $323,000 for the Town Hall renovation, a project that was eventually cancelled, and that cost ($323K) was not referenced on the list?The figure of $313,722 was made available to Council on November 5th, last Tuesday. Thenumber difference was my error. I was going by recollection. Because of the two hours spent on the question of an unwanted school site on Mavrinac Boulevard, the agenda was not completed even though the hour of adjournment was extended until 11.15p.m.
Monday night's report to the budget meeting was the financial status of capital projects; completed, underway, not started and cancelled. It included various expenditures for projects that did not materialize.

In a separate report on Monday. council were informed that because of a projected 2013 budget deficit, projects had been deferred and other actions taken to "mitigate " the deficit and allow the year to end with a "surplus"

The figures on the cancelled town hall renovation project were not included in Monday's report.
They were not available when the report was compiled.

Although ....I did ask a couple of meetings ago... what had been spent on the town hall renovation project before it was cancelled?

The Treasurer answered immediately, without having to check, $300,000; to be just as quickly contradicted by the CAO.

The following week I submitted Notice of Motion to direct a report giving the figures to be provided.

The Motion was withdrawn with indication that a report was forthcoming.

Tuesday, 5 November 2013

Sears is closing a number of outlets including a"flagship" store in Eaton's Centre.

There's irony for yiu. All that's left of Eaton's is the name.How long, I wonder before the idea of selling naming rights is proposed and even the name will disappear.

Yes, there's no place for sentiment in business.

Rona store at Smart Centre in Aurora is closing next month. It did only half the business expected.

I came home from Budget meeting last night and turned on the news.

Blackberry had withdrawn from the market. Apparently the market did not put the same vaalue on the shares as Blackberry.

The Town is a $51 million operating business the Mayor recently advised.

Politicians should not "micro-manage" he said.

The rationale is problematic.

Oversight , involvement, authority,control Call it what you like. Those elected are held responsible by electors for success or failure of town business.

The current Council is like two solitudes, on the edge of a precipice looking down into an abyss.

Town finances are in shambles.

With three months until year end, the 2013 budget is overspent,increased taxes were collected. , projects planned , either cancelled or deferred.

Supplementary assessment forecast , but not in hand, failed to materialise. .

It was always a possibility.

Micro managing or not the Mayor and Council are in it up to their necks.

The Budget was approved in mid-April.

In May, June, July and August, agendas were jam-packed with direction to b e given.

More time scheduled for town business was spent givig and receiving awards. Repeat delegations demanding we deal with issues we had no authority to deal with. Lawyers retained and paid for advice already known. There never was authority to do what was demanded of us.We listened to David Heard tell us over and over about his vision and Klaus Wehrenberg agitating just as often for trails.Deliberations continued until midnight . Agendas never once completed Short shrift to major issues and ill-advised decisions. In some circumstances .there may be satisfaction is saying "I told you so"Not politics. In politics , no discernment is practiced , no justification sufficient, no culprits to blame. Responsibility rests securely at the feet of power to make a difference ---- exercised or mot

Monday, 4 November 2013

Since there is a meeting tonight, perhaps you will be ' allowed ' to ask the solicitor a few key questions. If there is the slightest doubt about possible conflicts of interest, no councillors - including the Mayor - have any business at Centre meetings.Looks like a bright very cold morning. Have a great day. ********************
To-night's agenda is budget .

I forwarded the question on receipt of the decision. No doubt the answer will be available tomorrow when the report is tabled and direction sought.

You know, sheer genius is not the only explanation for my approach to the decision-making process.

( Evalina should be choking and spluttering her morning coffee about now)

The Region was created in 1971. Work and study had been going on for years before that. It started with the Smith Committee Report of taxation.

There had been few changes in the structure since the British North American Act, a hundred years since.

Change was long overdue.

A number of appointed Boards and Commissions were making decisions that rankled with local government.

There was a Planning Board, A Recreation Commission, Arena Boards of Management, Local Boards of Education . Library Board members were appointed by the Boards of Education.

Their financial decision-making caused friction with Councils.

They requisitioned funds from the municipality which in turn took all the flack for taxes collected.

Regions were created and the Province wiped out some boards , changed others slightly and allowed municipalities to retain Arena Boards of Management, or not.

The Province acknowledged the accountability for spending should rest with the elected body.

County Boards of Education were formed in 1969. There was no equality in education. Places like Markham could have everything the heart desired while communities without wealth did not have
means to provide essentials.

Changes were drastic.

"What if " I asked, "the solution is worse than the problem.?"

The Honorable Minister Darcy McKeogh answered:

" You make the decision Then you make sure it's the right one"

He didn't stick around to make sure .

Somewhere along the way ,the message got lost.

Aside from everything that has happened at the Region, in 2010, the Culture Centre Board created in Aurora with an agreement shaped by the municipality, so bad, it was thousands of times worse than anything ever seen prior to 1971.

No other member of Council has had my experience. They have not learned to depend on their own judgement.

From mine and the taxpayers' perspective, that is a definite disadvantage.

Not being privy to the written legal questions and/or argument submitted on the Town's behalf, presumably by the Town Solicitor, with possible outside legal consultation, it does indeed appear to be most unfortunate that the matter of the Board meeting in secret was not mentioned and therefore the Judge didn't know this.

If this a correct statement then a further submission should be made on behalf of the Town to the Superior Court.

Meetings in secret are only permitted under the Municipal Act for a few very specific reasons. The secret meetings of the Centre Board don't qualify.

*********************************
The above comment is exactly what I mean with the phrase "insufferably condescending and patronizing"

It has nothing to do with snobbery. It has to do with a limited range of judgement.

The writer learned whereof he spoke from my post. Proceeds to challenge the veracity. Then states "if correct" and cites the point of the post.

Like it would kill him to acknowledge a person of my lowly status might be correct in facts and judgement.

It's the very substance of the glass ceiling.

He is not unintelligent. He simply either needs to withhold merit----hog it for himself ----or both.

The problem would not be the same if a string of letters followed my name.

It would be a different . If I had the letters , the illusion would be they make up for experience in the field and judgement.

Sunday, 3 November 2013

A pink line appears telling me an error has occurred that won't allow publishing.

Then a place to "dismiss"' the message. But t doesn't.

Then I fiddle about with Draft I set about editing while letting it it rest. Then I publish . But the edit hasn't happened. I grit my teeth, edit again and click on publish , hoping it will. If I spent as long as I might , improving the writing , I would likely offer half as many posts. I'm not being paid upwards of $100,000 a year with benefits to publish this blog. Nor $7.50 a week which is what I used to get paid to write a weekly column for either of the two local newspapers. I do this as a labour of love and a contribution to town affairs. The object is to get as much information out to you as possible within the exigencies. So those who criticize my spelling and editing can , with all due respect, Go Fly A Kite in their spare time. To the rest . I humbly apologize for the myriad of corrections after the fact. Have a great Sunday

At Tuesday's Committee meeting, Council will receive the judicial response a question posed by the town. Council members can be members of the Culture Centre Board and vote on matters of pecuniary interest to the board without incurring a Conflict of Interest.If one understands the meaning of conflict , the answer was never in doubt. In the simplest terms, a conflict of interest happens when an elected member votes on a motion that has the potential of putting money into her pocket or the pocket of a close relative .The opinion was supportive and considered good governance to have Councillors serving on the board.It is said to be precedent setting decision. I don't think so. Half the membership of the Library Board are Councillors the rest are town appointees. Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority and the Hospital Board both have regional councillors serving;Boards of Education are entirely elected. Police Services Board and any other board receiving public funding has elected members on board including the Board of Public Health. The common factor is that meetings are conducted in public. The Culture Centre Board meetings are private. The Board would not budge on that in negotiating a new agreement ,They choose board members. They meet behind closed doors . They have a valuable rent-free building, with utilities and maintenance paid by the town and hundreds of thousands of public dollars to spend, growing every year.They meet in secret. The Judge didn't know. He wasn't told. The night a motion was debated in Council to give twelve months notice of termination to the Board something strange happened. The debate ended . Everything that could be said had been said. Support was evident.The Mayor spoke at length in support of the motion. All that was left was for the vote to be called. It wasn't. A pause intervened; long enough to be noticeable.Finally ,prompted by the Mayor, CouncillorThompson and Humfrey's moved an amendment that jettisoned the motion.It was about then I requested a review of the agreement by the town solicitor.The Mayor demurred. The solicitor had plenty of work to do , he said, without adding to it. Council discovered about the same time , the Mayor had been attending board meetings for months against advice of the town solicitor.The solicitor's review led to negotiation of a new agreement. It is better than the first. Asked to guess the appointees to the arm's length ,self-appointed board with closed door meetings, allowing secrecy in all their deliberations I would say Mayor Dawe and Councillor Thompson.As members of the board ,they may speak for the public's interest. We cannot be certain tof course.Because they will be bound by secrecy and independence inherent in the Board's constitution.Somewhere there's a reference to ex officio members. How is that useful? Ex officio members can attend, on=bserve,participate in deliberation; they cannot vote .No conflict of interest presents for Council appointees. No obvious purpose of any kind really.Only a breach of the requirement for elected officials to conduct all public business openly and without concealment. Except for a few notable exceptions. One of which is NOT participating in secret meetings of a board spending public funds

Saturday, 2 November 2013

CBC NewsForum Research Poll showed Mayor Ford's approval rating ROSE by 5% on Thursday after the police chief spoke.I did not make that up******************But you see, I think the outcome was predictable.It's what you learn, if they give you the chance to serve.If you're there for them when they need you if you never let them down even if it might cost you, they will always be there for you.It's a pact.They just need to know you can be trusted. No matter what.Rob Ford might have been unable to impress the editors. If they had learned their craft the old-fashioned way, if they had ever plumbed the depth of the stories they tell , instead of collecting degrees in journalism and business administration from renowned universities, the ediots would have known they couldn't do what they thought they could.Twenty per cent logic, eighty per cent emotion. Rob Ford didn't disgrace the city.The Toronto media did . How could the Mayor be responsible for headlines they wrote?Were they protecting the city's image when they told the story of a video offered to them for sale by a gang of drug dealers and murderers.It's like the victim of rape becomes responsible for having been raped in the adversarial system of law as practiced in the courts.Eight editors in the Sun tabloid had to band to-gether to do the damnable deed. None of them had the courage to do it alone or take responsibility.

It's interesting to do a bit of research on Stephen Harper's beginnings, his education and initial work experiences.

Harper was born in Toronto and completed his schooling there through his secondary school graduation. He enrolled at U of T but dropped out after two months. He then moved to Edmonton where he found work in the mail room at Imperial Oil. Later, he advanced to work on the company's computer systems. He took up [post-secondary studies again at the University of Calgary, where he completed a bachelor's degree in economics. He later returned there to earn a master's degree in economics, completed in 1993.

Harper became involved with politics as a member of his high schools Young Liberals Club. He later changed his affiliation because he disagreed with the National Energy Policy of the Trudeau government. For the next ten years he toiled in the political back rooms of the Reform Party, including the position of policy chief. Harper became leader of the National Citizens Coalition. He was skeptical about the Reform Party's United Alternative initiative, arguing it would serve to consolidate Preston Manning's hold on the party leadership. In 2000 the United Alternative created the Canadian Alliance as a successor party to Reform. As the battle for leadership took place Harper's positions on a number of issues hardened. On social issues Harper argued for 'parental rights' to use corporal punishment against their children and supported raising the age of sexual consent. He described his potential support base as "similar to what George Bush tapped."

I'm not going to go any further except to refer to a portion of his speech last night where he attacked academics (himself one), judges (how many Supreme Court nominations has he made?), Senators (again how many of these are his creation?) bureaucrats, bankers, big business (is the Keystone Pipeline not part of several big businesses?) diplomats, lobbyists and the Rideau Club.

He appealed to his "base" - the little guy, "cab drivers, the small business owners, the farms and foresters and fishermen, the factory and office workers, the seniors...those honest, hard-working Canadians, old and new," as Harper put it.

Will this speech be a success for Conservatives? if it isn't, it will be because it didn't matter what Harper said.

Strange times . Yesterday we watched the Chief of Police make statements relating circumstances to the Mayor of Toronto.

He expressed "disappointment"

The Chief and the army he commands, are public servants .Theoretically at least., they functions under the authority of those who pay the freight. A hefty price at that.

The police are governed by provincial legislation. There's a police governing authority.

Politics cannot interfere with the work of the police. The police must steer clear of politics.

But yesterday we saw what we saw.

I doubtit was the Chief's intention. There appears to be no artifice to the man. His character is written large upon his face.

He seems to be a good,kind,well-intentioned policeman with a very difficult job.

We witnessed by the magic of television the instantaneous effect of his statement .

People were persuaded his words incriminated the Mayor. They said so into the camera.

They did not hear follow-up information of no evidence of "criminality" against the Mayor.

Senator Pamela Wallin's experience, at the hands of a Corporal of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is similar.

The Senator Wallexpense claims have been audited. Almost $200,000 were found to be invalid.
Despite her disagreement with the finding Senator Wallin refunded the money to the Senate Treasury.

Then along comes a Corporal and declares the Senator is guilty of "fraud"

Since when does a police corporal have the authority to make that determination.

Are there no proscuting attorneys? No courts ? No judges? No trials?

Are the Royal Canadian Mounted Police a law unto themselves. ?

Well. God Help Us All !

At the local level, a police officer is responsible for filing a charge. The Crown Attorney's office is responsible to determine if evidence is sufficient to prosecute the charge under the relevant law.

They do a slip -shod job of it but it is their jurisdiction.

A date is scheduled and trial proceeds ----or not . depending on other procedures.

It's a judge who decides guilt or innocence . Not a police corporal.

But when a revered Red Coat says it is so, "She did it. Oh Yes Indeed , She did it alright"

Why would an average citizen suspect the Corporal had no authority to say any such thing.

Having reached the level of Corporal, past the level of first-class constable, could he possibly be unaware he was speaking out of turn and doing inestimable damage to a citizen in the process?

Would anyon suspect a Corporal of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of malce aforethought?

Friday, 1 November 2013

I'm no Ford advocate but I think the Police Chief has made an enormous mistake. He seems to be confirming suspicions about what was in that pipe. No way he can know for sure. there are at least 2 other possible substances. I can't see how he is going to wiggle out of that assumption. Mayor Ford has some pretty decent lawyers ****************I had the same reaction. The media were careful to say no "criminality" is alleged against the Mayor.Yet comments by passers-by were " Now the Police Chief is saying it ------it must be true"
Mr Blair stated they had the Mayor and his friend under surveillance.

The friend became aware of it so he set up counter-surveillance.

Then the police used a plane to follow them about

My God, how much did they spend to uncover nothing "incriminating" against the Mayor.

Last night, Halloween, David Letterman featured various well-known figures in videos in a variety of costumes.

Morley Shaeffer had little horns protruding from his head and wearing grey loosely hung wrestler's tights.

It was Morley's face alright and Morley's voice but the body clearly didn't belong .

I've seen an all- out effort before now to destroy a man's life. It happens.

It's an ugly sight.

Nobody involved can be proud to have been part of it.What's happening now in Toronto is a firestorm of hysteria ,The Mayor is not the one fanning the flames.

There's that reverse snobbery of yours again. ***************************At the last Council meeting , a motion on the table was an attempt to clarify precisely how the
elected body exercises control and requires accountability from staff.

The motion sprang from a response from the Mayor a query from Council was tantamount to micro-managing .

During debate, the function of the Mayor as Chief Executive Officer was dismissed as meaningless .

He indicated with a glance around the table if he really had authority as CEO "there would be changes "

The comment was clearly not directed at staff

One is forced to conclude the remark was directed at Councillors.

At best it was unwise. At worst, downright stupid

The only meaning possible was that some members occupying seats would not if he really was CEO

The comment was offensive. Not conducive to civil response. In breach of the rule
requiring civility by the member responsible for maintaining civility.